Link to post

Share on other sites

Ok they have clarified why they didnt post pics and are just saying to check cert # vs listed grade on label as thats how they discovered fraudulent labels.

So here's what they said:

Quote

Hey all, we want to address the concerns mentioned throughout this thread.We didn’t post pictures of the labels because we do not want to put other companies down. We realize security is important for all grading services and this was only to informcollectors to be careful. Look up the serial numbers of each book you have and make sure the grade corresponds to the book in your hand, The grades and serial numbers on the books we received, didn’t match up.

Does this mean they regularly look up other companies grading information when they grade a book that was previously graded by another company? Are they not grading blind? Was it a prescreen of some sort that made them suspicious?

Share on other sites

Hey all, we want to address the concerns mentioned throughout this thread.We didn’t post pictures of the labels because we do not want to put other companies down. We realize security is important for all grading services and this was only to informcollectors to be careful. Look up the serial numbers of each book you have and make sure the grade corresponds to the book in your hand, The grades and serial numbers on the books we received, didn’t match up.

Does this mean they regularly look up other companies grading information when they grade a book that was previously graded by another company? Are they not grading blind? Was it a prescreen of some sort that made them suspicious?

It's a specious answer. They "don't want to put other companies down"...? Sounds nice and virtue-signally, but why would another company be "put down" because some unknown third party may have tampered with their slabs? Is it "the other company"s fault that that happened? Of course not. Does it POTENTIALLY expose a hole in a system? Of course it does, and every such event should be investigated...which is why withholding this information is not a virtuous act, but rather a fairly slimy thing to do.

.An "anonymous" report does no one any good, and could very, very easily be seen as an attempt to introduce doubt about "the other companies" that isn't justified.

If you're unwilling to support your claim, don't make it. Everybody should be doing their due diligence, all the time. It's not difficult.

And what do they mean, "the grades and serial numbers...didn't match up"...? Are they saying there were labels with real serial numbers with grades that didn't match those serial numbers...? Are they saying there were labels with fake serial numbers...? Are they saying that the books themselves didn't match up with the grades *they* thought they should be...? And how does one "make sure the grade corresponds to the book in your hand", if customers don't know how to grade, and are relying on the grading service to inform them...?

Last year, a very serious flaw was discovered in CBCS' case design, wherein the heat seal didn't touch the label, and because of that, it was relatively easy to swap out labels without anyone being aware. It was brought to light by CBCS customers, with copious pictorial documentation, and the company took steps to resolve it.

That's how this should be addressed, too...not some anonymous, virtue-signalling report that could just be an attempt to create market doubt about the competition. A little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Brand Ecch isn't as secure as they want you to think they are..." I'm not saying that's the case...but I'm not saying it's not, either.

This guy is a conspiratorial nutjob. He created an entire video based on a faulty understanding of grading.

Ugh. I had to watch that entire thing.

So, how is this guy wrong?

1. There are 6 copies of this book...and only 6...on the census, or, more importantly, have ever BEEN on the census. All 6 are...yup...9.8. 5 were graded between 2006-2007, and the 6th and last in late 2014. This book was one of the 2007 copies. So, his claim that this book was "probably a 9.0" with a label that was swapped is false, because there are no other (lower grade) labels for this book to swap WITH.

2. The book may be slightly gift graded, but only slightly. Aside from the top corner, there's nothing else wrong with the book that would knock it out of 9.8. All of his "flaws" he lists are typical production for books like this.

3. It's very difficult to swap labels in a case that has three of its four posts still intact without crumpling the label to some extent...and that assumes there IS such a label that exists TO be swapped, which there is not.

4. He doesn't even know the terminology. He calls the inner well a "cell-o bag."

5. While it's true that thieves and cheats practice on low value items to perfect their methods, there's nothing here that suggests this is one of those examples.

6. He compares it to a PGX slab. That alone disqualifies him.

Yes, the one post is broken. Granted. But the other three are not. Yes, he should have returned the slab for that problem alone if it wasn't mentioned. But no, the book is not a "counterfeit CGC slab." Sigh.

And, of course, if the other 5 9.8s do show up, he's going to have Occam's Razored himself into oblivion, because his will be the 6th label, and there are no other blue labels of this book (and thus, no copies to "swap labels with") that exist.

This guy is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how having a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

The funniest line this guy had was "This could end up in the hands of someone else who is not as experienced as I am." You'd have to be my grandmother to not be as experienced as this guy.

Link to post

Share on other sites

This guy is a conspiratorial nutjob. He created an entire video based on a faulty understanding of grading.

Ugh. I had to watch that entire thing.

So, how is this guy wrong?

1. There are 6 copies of this book...and only 6...on the census, or, more importantly, have ever BEEN on the census. All 6 are...yup...9.8. 5 were graded between 2006-2007, and the 6th and last in late 2014. This book was one of the 2007 copies. So, his claim that this book was "probably a 9.0" with a label that was swapped is false, because there are no other (lower grade) labels for this book to swap WITH.

2. The book may be slightly gift graded, but only slightly. Aside from the top corner, there's nothing else wrong with the book that would knock it out of 9.8. All of his "flaws" he lists are typical production for books like this.

3. It's very difficult to swap labels in a case that has three of its four posts still intact without crumpling the label to some extent...and that assumes there IS such a label that exists TO be swapped, which there is not.

4. He doesn't even know the terminology. He calls the inner well a "cell-o bag."

5. While it's true that thieves and cheats practice on low value items to perfect their methods, there's nothing here that suggests this is one of those examples.

6. He compares it to a PGX slab. That alone disqualifies him.

Yes, the one post is broken. Granted. But the other three are not. Yes, he should have returned the slab for that problem alone if it wasn't mentioned. But no, the book is not a "counterfeit CGC slab." Sigh.

And, of course, if the other 5 9.8s do show up, he's going to have Occam's Razored himself into oblivion, because his will be the 6th label, and there are no other blue labels of this book (and thus, no copies to "swap labels with") that exist.

This guy is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how having a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

The funniest line this guy had was "This could end up in the hands of someone else who is not as experienced as I am." You'd have to be my grandmother to not be as experienced as this guy.

Thank you for interpreting his babbling words for me. I could imagine him as a pessimist or "pulling CGC down" guy.

Share on other sites

It's a specious answer. They "don't want to put other companies down"...? Sounds nice and virtue-signally, but why would another company be "put down" because some unknown third party may have tampered with their slabs? Is it "the other company"s fault that that happened? Of course not. Does it POTENTIALLY expose a hole in a system? Of course it does, and every such event should be investigated...which is why withholding this information is not a virtuous act, but rather a fairly slimy thing to do.

.An "anonymous" report does no one any good, and could very, very easily be seen as an attempt to introduce doubt about "the other companies" that isn't justified.

If you're unwilling to support your claim, don't make it. Everybody should be doing their due diligence, all the time. It's not difficult.

And what do they mean, "the grades and serial numbers...didn't match up"...? Are they saying there were labels with real serial numbers with grades that didn't match those serial numbers...? Are they saying there were labels with fake serial numbers...? Are they saying that the books themselves didn't match up with the grades *they* thought they should be...? And how does one "make sure the grade corresponds to the book in your hand", if customers don't know how to grade, and are relying on the grading service to inform them...?

Last year, a very serious flaw was discovered in CBCS' case design, wherein the heat seal didn't touch the label, and because of that, it was relatively easy to swap out labels without anyone being aware. It was brought to light by CBCS customers, with copious pictorial documentation, and the company took steps to resolve it.

That's how this should be addressed, too...not some anonymous, virtue-signalling report that could just be an attempt to create market doubt about the competition. A little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Brand Ecch isn't as secure as they want you to think they are..." I'm not saying that's the case...but I'm not saying it's not, either.

very well stated and I agree, this is a very serious matter which if made clear and public might stop or help people from buying these books....again why not explain

Link to post

Share on other sites

This guy is a conspiratorial nutjob. He created an entire video based on a faulty understanding of grading.

Ugh. I had to watch that entire thing.

So, how is this guy wrong?

1. There are 6 copies of this book...and only 6...on the census, or, more importantly, have ever BEEN on the census. All 6 are...yup...9.8. 5 were graded between 2006-2007, and the 6th and last in late 2014. This book was one of the 2007 copies. So, his claim that this book was "probably a 9.0" with a label that was swapped is false, because there are no other (lower grade) labels for this book to swap WITH.

2. The book may be slightly gift graded, but only slightly. Aside from the top corner, there's nothing else wrong with the book that would knock it out of 9.8. All of his "flaws" he lists are typical production for books like this.

3. It's very difficult to swap labels in a case that has three of its four posts still intact without crumpling the label to some extent...and that assumes there IS such a label that exists TO be swapped, which there is not.

4. He doesn't even know the terminology. He calls the inner well a "cell-o bag."

5. While it's true that thieves and cheats practice on low value items to perfect their methods, there's nothing here that suggests this is one of those examples.

6. He compares it to a PGX slab. That alone disqualifies him.

Yes, the one post is broken. Granted. But the other three are not. Yes, he should have returned the slab for that problem alone if it wasn't mentioned. But no, the book is not a "counterfeit CGC slab." Sigh.

And, of course, if the other 5 9.8s do show up, he's going to have Occam's Razored himself into oblivion, because his will be the 6th label, and there are no other blue labels of this book (and thus, no copies to "swap labels with") that exist.

This guy is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how having a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

The funniest line this guy had was "This could end up in the hands of someone else who is not as experienced as I am." You'd have to be my grandmother to not be as experienced as this guy.

Not very. The cases really are designed to be pretty tamper evident. Far more common are the people who don't know what they're doing but rush to judgment and are too quick to cry "FAKE!!!" without evidence.

By the way...there are security devices about the cases that nobody but CGC knows about, that they keep in-house on purpose.